ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “...to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting petitioner's case for being appointed as LDC as illegal and arbitrary and set-a-side the letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS-(L)/PO-H-3/WP No. 6283 of 2005-08 dt.18.02.2008 issued by the 2 nd respondent. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as LDC, duly granting all other consequential benefits on par with his colleagues, who were selected and appointed in terms of notification dt. 24.04.2001.” 2. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Telangana, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) The petitioner worked as a contract labour in the office of the 3 rd respondent from 01.05.1996 to 31.08.1998. BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 was issued by the erstwhile APSEB, as a consequence of settlement entered into between the Trade Unions and Management, mandates that 50% posts of initial recruitment cadre should be filled in considering the Ex-Casual labour, Contract Labour and VEWs. The 3rd respondent issued Notification, dated 24.04.2001, calling upon from the eligible candidates to apply for the post of initial recruitment cadre as per BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. As the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as LDC, he had submitted an application along with all the certificates including the service certificate issued by the contractor and counter signed by the departmental official. (b) Thereafter, all the applications and certificates produced by the candidates were scrutinized by the officials of the 1 st respondent and thereafter petitioner’s name was included in the list of qualified and eligible candidates for selection and the same was placed on the Notice Board. After conducting the interviews, the respondents have once again referred the matter to Vigilance Authorities for verification of service certificates produced by the selected candidates. Having verified, the Vigilance Authorities reported that, the service certificate produced by the petitioner, is correct and genuine. After the said report, the respondents issued a Notification published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated 13.01.2003, holding that there were no successful candidates and the result of interview held as "NIL" (c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6190 of 2003. After the said report, the respondents issued a Notification published in the Vaartha Telugu daily, dated 13.01.2003, holding that there were no successful candidates and the result of interview held as "NIL" (c) Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6190 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was adjudicated along with the batch of Writ Petitions i.e. W.P. No.5158 of 2003, dated 28.10.2004. While adjudicating the above batch of Writ Petitions, this Court categorically observed as follows: "It is for the respondent board to verify the certificates produced by the petitioners with reference to the agreements awarded to the contractor, which were verified and counter signed by the official respondents. Therefore, the action of the respondents in simply rejecting the cases of the petitioners based on the Vigilance Inspector's report on the ground that the contract has not produced the aforesaid registers is unreasonable and unsustainable. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to verify the certificates issued by the contractor and counter signed by the officials of the respondents with reference to the agreements under which particular contract labours are engaged as on 18.05.1997 and consider their cases for appointment in accordance with BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997". (d) Despite such clear and categorical direction given by this Court, the respondents issued a letter, dated 08.01.2005 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed as LDC on the ground that: i. Petitioner claims to have worked from 01.05.1996 to 31.08.1998 under LS agreements No.4/97-98, 49/97-98. The above agreements ii. The above agreements were commenced from 31.05.1997 i.e., after 18.05.1997, as such, petitioner’s case was rejected. (e) The reason shown by the respondents for rejecting petitioner’s case vide letter, dated 08.01.2005 are not only incorrect, but also contrary to the record and judgment rendered by this Court in WP No.5158 of 2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.6283 of 2005, challenging the letter, dated 08.01.2005. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated 03.01.2007 disposed of the writ petition, giving liberty to produce all the relevant material before the 2nd respondent. (f) Pursuant to the above direction, petitioner submitted representation, duly enclosing the education qualifications and also service certificates and requested to appoint him as LDC in terms of BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Having considered, this Court by an order, dated 03.01.2007 disposed of the writ petition, giving liberty to produce all the relevant material before the 2nd respondent. (f) Pursuant to the above direction, petitioner submitted representation, duly enclosing the education qualifications and also service certificates and requested to appoint him as LDC in terms of BP Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. However, without considering the submissions made by the petitioner, in gross violation of the earlier orders passed by the court in WP No. 5746 of 2003, the 2 nd respondent issued Memo, dated 18.02.2008. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 18.02.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bent upon to reject the case of the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The service certificate produced by the petitioner clearly establishes that he worked as Contract Labour from 01.05.1996 to 31.08.1998 and the said certificate was even counter signed by the departmental officials. As such, he is a contract labour as on the cut of date i.e. 18.05.1997, therefore, by showing those untenable reasons, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his appointment. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and submits as follows: (a) That in B.P.(P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 orders were issued for filling up of 50% of the vacant posts LDCs/Typist/JPOs existing as on that day, by the Ex-Casual Labour/VEWs and contract labour subject to fulfilling conditions mentioned therein. Accordingly, employment Notification was issued on 28.04.2001 inviting the applications from the desired candidates. While so, petitioner applied for the post of LDC/Typist and as he had failed to oblige the conditions therein, he could not be selected. (b) The inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the notification, dated 30-11-2002 calling him for the interview, would not confer on him any right to claim for appointment since he failed to fulfill the conditions in B.P. (P&G) Ms. No. 36, dt. 18-05-1997. Since no successful candidates were available in the interview, NIL results were notified in the daily Newspaper. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to declare the said results as illegal. No. 36, dt. 18-05-1997. Since no successful candidates were available in the interview, NIL results were notified in the daily Newspaper. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to declare the said results as illegal. In pursuance of the above, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. by its common order, dated 28.10.2004 in W.P.No.6190 of 2003 and W.P.No. 5158 of 2003 batch set aside the above NIL results and directed the respondents to consider the case of the case of the petitioner in the light of the observation made in B.P. (P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. (c) In pursuance of the above, duly complying with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. since the petitioner is not qualified, vide this office Proc. Lr. No. CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/524/04, dated 08.01.2005 speaking orders were issued to the petitioner indicating the reasons for his non-selection to the post. Aggrieved by the said rejection orders, dated 08.01.2005, the individual filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. seeking the direction to the respondents to quash the said speaking orders. (d) In pursuance of the above, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. by its common order dated 03.01.2007 inter alia in W.P.No.6283 of 2005 and batch passed common orders as follows: 1. The petitioners are at liberty to produce all the relevant material before the Chief General Manager of the respondent organization on or before 24.02.2007 to substantiate their claim. 2. On receiving such material, the Chief General Manager is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of the material to be produced by the petitioners and the record available with them and pass a speaking order as expeditiously as possible. (e) In pursuance of the orders Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.7038 of 2005, vide Procs. No. CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-II/PO-IV-24/07, dated 02.05.2007, the Superintending Engineer/ Operation/ DPE/ NPDC Ltd., was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into material produced by the petitioner for considering his case for the post of LDC. While so, the Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, has submitted the findings of the enquiry report, wherein he held that the service certificate produced by the petitioner is not genuine. While so, the Enquiry Officer after conducting a detailed enquiry, has submitted the findings of the enquiry report, wherein he held that the service certificate produced by the petitioner is not genuine. (f) The respondent authorities after a detailed examination of the report, decisively accepting with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, rejected the case of the petitioner for the post of LDC. Accordingly, vide proceedings, dated 18.02.2008, the petitioner was communicated the reasons for rejecting of his case for the post of LDC. Thus, the common orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.6283 of 2005 filed by the petitioner have been scrupulously obeyed. The petitioner terming the action of the respondent as contempt of the court orders, dated 03.01.2007 in W.P.No.6283 of 2005, filed C.C. No.109 of 2008 and the same was also as dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P, by its order, dated 01.05.2008. (g) Since the petitioner failed to substantiate his date of engagement as on 18.05.1997 on the rolls of contractors establishment in terms of B.P. (P&G) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, his case could not be considered for the post of LDC. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 6. A perusal of the impugned Order, dated 18.02.2008 shows that the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner by observing as follows: During the enquiry, the contractor deposed that he has not maintained any registers. The petitioner Sri C. Jaya Singh also admitted that he did not sign in the muster roll or wage register. Their above version makes it clear that the mandatory norm of the petitioner's existence on the rolls of establishment as on 18-05-1997 has not gained acceptance. As such the unavailableness of records with the contractor has lost its essence for acceptability of the service certificate as to its genuineness. The above failure on the part of the petitioner has been further strengthened with the revelation of the fact by Sri. Jaganmohan Shastri, the then ADE citing that the petitioner is unscrupulous and of his signing is confinable only to the extent of the contractor's performance of works during his tenure. From the above, it is evident that the service certificate produced by the petitioner Sri C. Jaya Singh is found not genuine. 7. Jaganmohan Shastri, the then ADE citing that the petitioner is unscrupulous and of his signing is confinable only to the extent of the contractor's performance of works during his tenure. From the above, it is evident that the service certificate produced by the petitioner Sri C. Jaya Singh is found not genuine. 7. The main observation of the authorities is that the contractor deposed that he had not maintained any registers. The petitioner also admitted that he did not sign in the muster roll or wage register. Their above version makes it clear that the mandatory norm of the petitioner's existence on the rolls of establishment as on 18-05-1997 has not gained acceptance. Moreover, Sri. Jaganmohan Shastri, the then ADE cited the petitioner is dishonest, and his signature is confined only to the extent of the contractor's performance of works during his tenure. In view of the above lacunae, the respondent authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner. 8. To fortify their contention, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.6498 of 2008 wherein similar set of facts were brought before the Court by the petitioners therein and the same was dismissed by observing as follows: “It is only the contract labour, that have been engaged at a particular point of time, that were entitled to be regularized, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an earlier occasion, the cases of the petitioners were rejected, on the ground that they failed to prove the fact that they have been engaged by labour contractor. When they approached this court, a specific direction was issued to the petitioners, as well as to the respondents, as regards the verification of record. On their part, the respondents got a vigilance enquiry conducted. The contractor, who issued the certificates, did not produce any record, and categorically stated that he did not maintain the same. An official, who endorsed on the certificates, refused to appear in the enquiry. At one point of time, he deposed that he no doubt endorsed on the certificates, but did not verify any record, such as Attendance Register, Acquittance Register, etc. With this back ground, the petitioners cannot be said to have proved their cases that they have been engaged as contract labour, on an earlier occasion. At one point of time, he deposed that he no doubt endorsed on the certificates, but did not verify any record, such as Attendance Register, Acquittance Register, etc. With this back ground, the petitioners cannot be said to have proved their cases that they have been engaged as contract labour, on an earlier occasion. Under these circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.” Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners therein preferred an appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.958 of 2008 before this Court and the same was dismissed by observing that the petition involves disputed questions of fact, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds stated in the rejection order are not sustainable in rejecting the case of the petitioner. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as once the preliminary document i.e. service certificate has lacunae, it cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.